On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
I would like to see all the assemblies except the framework
assembly be constructed by adding plugins to the framework
assembly. Just because there has been no progress on this goal in
the last year...
I agree. That was the original vision and why the framework
assembly was created.
I think we are pretty close to having enough pieces lined up so we
can actually do this, so I'm very definitely against removing this
assembly. We could remove all the others to spur on this process :-)
heh ... I'll bet that would work! ;-) I also agree that we're
pretty close with some of the progress on the web console
extensibility piece so that we can start building the assemblies
from the plugins. That's actually what spawned the question again
now. We'll build up assemblies from some "base" framework via
plugins and collections of plugins (I and others have referred to
these as templates at other times) to create our default server
configurations or custom user/system assemblies.
I was just wondering what the best "starting point" was for this.
While a base framework without a web container is the most
architecturally pure ... it might not be the most user friendly.
It could be argued that it doesn't make sense to deliver to users a
core framework that isn't good for anything unless something is
added to it. I supposed we could hide the complexity with a
template installer (or perhaps build installing the template/
plugins into server initialization on the first server start or
some other "non-install" activity). That way users that just want
a minimal or jee5 assembly don't have to deal directly directly
with the framework. We'll have to give this some more thought.
I don't see our starting point (e.g. the framework server) as
limiting the preconfigured servers we distribute. Even after we have
a wonderful "build your own server from plugins" tool we may well
want to ship some servers where we have added a few things... such as
a web container.
In any case I think the main bits missing from assembly from plugins
are the plugin metadata/installation being able to modify more of the
files in var and in particular var/config such as all the
artifact_aliases.properties and config-substitutions.properties.
thanks
david jencks
Oh well ... you've all convinced me that it might be too soon to
pull the plug on the framework assembly and it may very well still
be the core assembly. Thanks to all that responded.
Joe
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
Before removing it I'm wondering, in what scenario(s) would we
use the framework assembly? One scenario that comes to mind is
an installer that lays down the framework and then installs
plugins on top of it for a truly customized server. The minimal
assembly already seems to fit that scenario pretty well though,
assuming the installer could just remove the web container in the
uncommon(?) cases where its not needed. So the minimal assembly
could be the base line for an installer plus double as a
preconfigured assembly that serves as the low-end for our users
(i.e. no installer required). Plus, since the minimal assembly
has a web container we could use a web UI for the installer
instead of some native app like we used to have -- actually the
"installer" is more like a plugin configurer from that point of
view.
What other scenarios can we think of where a framework assembly
could be useful? And do the recent advancements in GShell (very
cool btw!!) play into this discussion?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Hey Donald (and others) ... Is anybody actually using this
framework "ie. containerless" assembly? I was just thinking of
removing this assembly prior to seeing this change.
At one point in time this was going to be our most minimal
assembly (without even a web container) for building up a
pluggable server. However, it seems like the tide is changing to
always expect a web container in the smallest framework assembly
(ie. the minimal assemblies we already have). There's been a
lot of cool work on the pluggable console and it seems like are
heading in a direction to make this the primary interface for
building and managing the server ... but of course it requires a
web container as a minimal starting point.
So, the question is: Should we remove the framework assembly
and work on the assumption that our most minimal assemblies
should always include a web container?
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dwoods
Date: Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
New Revision: 568632
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=568632&view=rev
Log:
adding missing depend on geronimo-boilerplate-minimal
Modified:
geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Modified: geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/
pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml?
rev=568632&r1=568631&r2=568632&view=diff
==================================================================
============
--- geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
(original)
+++ geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/geronimo-framework/pom.xml
Wed Aug 22 07:47:42 2007
@@ -40,6 +40,12 @@
<dependencies>
<dependency>
+ <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.assemblies</groupId>
+ <artifactId>geronimo-boilerplate-minimal</artifactId>
+ <version>${version}</version>
+ </dependency>
+
+ <dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.configs</groupId>
<artifactId>j2ee-system</artifactId>
<version>${version}</version>
